FM2011: The worst CM/FM ever.

[BiggusD]

What do you think "Big Matches" mean?

You get under strengths & weaknesses "Doesn't cope well with big occasions" or "Enjoys big matches"

I don't mean "Blending into squad" off the assistant advice either I mean on the coach/scout reports - "You have a professional bunch of players and xxx fits in well" or "You have a determined squad and xxx is having to adapt"

Big matches is a separate hidden attribute, not to be confused with Pressure. I meant both the assistant advice and the coach reports - it is clear that a new player with low adaptability will more easily succumb to pressure as well as being more difficult to motivate. It took almost a whole season before David Villalva tolerated expectancy or For the Fans, so he was almost on the transfer list before suddenly "taking off" with a couple of hat-tricks towards the end of the season and motivated play. After this I realised that that regardless of Determination and Professionality etc, a new player may require time and patience to play well and this is implemented as a penalty to the hidden mental stats - but "still attempting to blend into the squad" doesn't quite communicate that. It is the obvious way of doing it once realised/understood through failure to motivate and avoid nervousness, but that is a meaning of "blend" that only emerges once the team talk mechanic is truly understood. I.E it is difficult to notice the real consequence of not having a fully blended squad because the connection between "blend" and "playing nervously" isn't made in the game.

[Lazaru5]

A few thoughts:

1. Considering that MLS -the only league I play- was a total bust until the third patch came out, I'd agree that this is the "worst" version of FM that I've played. However, if I'm going strictly by the 11.3 patch I'm actually having quite a bit of fun as I'm now in my 4th season.

2. I agree 100% that the press conferences have got to go. Do they happen in real life? Yes. Do the journalists have more than a dozen or so questions that they can ask? Yes. Do managers have more than 5 possible answers to each one? Yes. Are they an utter waste of time in the game? YES. Would I dare let my assman take over one himself and risk upsetting my players/team? HELL NO!

3. I also agree with Canadian that too much of the game seems to be decided upon "off the field" stuff and not the actual players and tactics on the pitch. The morale system is far too harsh- lose a game or two and your morale drops...which makes it even harder to win the next game! In effect, you're being rewarded for winning (in turn making it easier to win) while being punished for losing (in turn making it harder to win.) This often results in entire seasons being dictated in the opening weeks; a team that loses a couple of games at the start rarely makes a significant impact in the league, regardless of the talent level of the players. Again, I play exclusively in MLS, where the teams are all on relatively even footing...yet each season has resulted in teams that struggle early on and then completely tank the rest of the season. It's not as though there's a huge talent gap, either, that seperates the good from the bad (excluding my team, of course!)

4. Player chats are a joke. Every time I've tried to tell a player that I've been disappointed in his performance I get the "That's not fair," reply. A 6.5 average over 5 games is not okay, but I'll be darned if I can convince any of my players- even the ones that are averaging well over a 7.0 for the season. Or the always great "Look, you're a sweeper...stop trying to lob the keeper." "No, thanks...I'm not changing the way I play." Who is the coach here?

5. Contracts:

A. 2 days before a player's contract expires- "I want $500,000 per year."

B. 1 day after the player's contract expires- "Sure, I'll take $45,000 per year."

6. Favored personnel. Me: "Player X is wonderful, I can't say enough good things about him. I've offered my wife and oldest daughter to him as a reward for his fine play." Result: nothing. Opposing coach: "Player X is showing potential. I should know because I'm coaching a smaller team in a lower league." Result: Player's X has a new Best Friend Forever.

7. Mind games: My team wins a game 7-0. Immediately after I receive a news item about the other coach questioning my tactics. What?

1. tbf who gives a toss about MLS? Most of the RL 'soccer moms' only have daughters... what does that tell you? /sarcasm

2. couldn't disagree more - press conferences are the ideal way to fire your team up

3. I don't accept that a few bad results set the tone for the season, last season my league one Hereford team lost 3 of their 5 friendlies beating only BSS teams Dorchester and Hampton & Richmond by the odd goal and then lost their first 5 competitive games... we finished 8th and only 4 points off the play-offs. The key is managing your players morale and knowing how to combat issues caused by low morale...

4. I have no problems with private chats, my players rarely tell me no, and even if they do a sharp "who do you think you are?" type of response usually gets them back-tracking

5. +1

6. +1 again to a point... I think that players can be upset by a manager through private chat/team-talks/media comments causing them to be less likely to make them "favoured personnel" quickly whilst showing no obvious signs of their 'dislike'

7. It's because he doesn't like you, the result is irrelevant...

[x42bn6]

But you are missing the obvious... you have all the info you need, all you need to do now is see how it is affecting your player! if a player is frightened, or nervous, or complacent or confident or whatever - even if it doesn't say it in the widget it doesn't mean that they aren't - it is apparent in the 3D View (it is to me at least). I say again, there is no substitute for watching the full 90 because you can see everything that is going on, the tiny mistakes that "key" or "extended" just don't show you, the clever touches that your flamboyant winger makes that lead to nothing and so don't get shown... all the little indicators of confidence and fear and nerves are there in front of you... combine it with your knowledge of the players personality and attributes and reports and you have everything you need...

everything!

Er, no, as you said, "it's not ideal", because how a player performs on the pitch is not just down to the team talks you give them at half-time. It is also dependent on things like opposition team talks and tactics changes, and general fatigue, for example.

As a result, you certainly do not get "everything".

This contrasts to reality, where you can see how your team talk has gone by reading their eyes and seeing how they react when they start playing the second half - and you cannot read emotions on 3D.

That you have to resort to the match engine to see how players' emotions are is incorrect and flawed - and most importantly, unrealistic.

[milnerpoint]

The assistant and coaches do not report on pressure, which was bolded in a previous post. Nor do they give sufficient information during matches.

Considering things like pressure and important matches are hidden, yet a manager can realistically innately know about these things, I would expect the assistant to expose more of these attributes.

Not exposing things to make them tedious is a terrible way of introducing "difficulty" within the game.

yes they do, within the first 5 mintues of any game with two clicks of the mouse you can easily see who is motivated and who is struggling on both teams through the assistant widgit. From there you build your own picture, no one knows everything about a person instantly, but within 5 games you can quickly make your own mind up based on the matches and feedback from your staff, much like real life, obviously we dont see things like body language and and facial expressions in FM, but in real life you dont get an ever changing list of how motivated every player on the pitch is, including the opposition. You will at some point click on the coach reports on your players, this is much like having a meeting with your staff in real life, you dont have to do every player at once and really you only need to click once, even poor coaches will give acurate enough feedback and that along side your own judgement you quickly build a picture of your players.

Before each game starts, again with ONE click of the mouse you can get feedback on who is looking scared, over confident, who is not fitting in with the squad, and who doesnt look interested, again hardly a chore.

You seem to want this innate knowlage of your players instantly, no one gets that, Fergie, using your example, did not know that Hernandez would instantly fit into his squad and have the ability to handle the pressure of leading the attack in the big games, its come as a suprise to him, much like im sure he was suprised when he learned that Veron would struggle so badly to adapt to being in england, these are things he has learnt after time with the players.

You also have to consider how basic in the bigger scheme of things the emotions in FM are. A player in poor form will have poor moral, a player will get unhappy if he disagree's with your statment to the press or with your team talk or your private chat. You will also get a note on each players profile if such things have affected them. A player will not come into the dressing room after his wife has just left him the day before the cup final and look distraught so you dont need to worry about looking them in the face before the game, that goes for hundreds more senario's that could happen in real life, if they are unhappy its always obvious why. Its a program and as such it will follow a pattern, one that is easy to learn and fairly in your face. No you dont see certain stats like pressure, big game, professionalism, consistancy, but you will learn them quickly if you pay attention, does any manager gain instant knowlage of each player, no of course not.

[BiggusD]

yes they do, within the first 5 mintues of any game with two clicks of the mouse you can easily see who is motivated and who is struggling on both teams through the assistant widgit. From there you build your own picture, no one knows everything about a person instantly, but within 5 games you can quickly make your own mind up based on the matches and feedback from your staff, much like real life, obviously we dont see things like body language and and facial expressions in FM, but in real life you dont get an ever changing list of how motivated every player on the pitch is, including the opposition. You will at some point click on the coach reports on your players, this is much like having a meeting with your staff in real life, you dont have to do every player at once and really you only need to click once, even poor coaches will give acurate enough feedback and that along side your own judgement you quickly build a picture of your players.

Before each game starts, again with ONE click of the mouse you can get feedback on who is looking scared, over confident, who is not fitting in with the squad, and who doesnt look interested, again hardly a chore.

You seem to want this innate knowlage of your players instantly, no one gets that, Fergie, using your example, did not know that Hernandez would instantly fit into his squad and have the ability to handle the pressure of leading the attack in the big games, its come as a suprise to him, much like im sure he was suprised when he learned that Veron would struggle so badly to adapt to being in england, these are things he has learnt after time with the players.

You also have to consider how basic in the bigger scheme of things the emotions in FM are. A player in poor form will have poor moral, a player will get unhappy if he disagree's with your statment to the press or with your team talk or your private chat. You will also get a note on each players profile if such things have affected them. A player will not come into the dressing room after his wife has just left him the day before the cup final and look distraught so you dont need to worry about looking them in the face before the game, that goes for hundreds more senario's that could happen in real life, if they are unhappy its always obvious why. Its a program and as such it will follow a pattern, one that is easy to learn and fairly in your face. No you dont see certain stats like pressure, big game, professionalism, consistancy, but you will learn them quickly if you pay attention, does any manager gain instant knowlage of each player, no of course not.

But knowing instantly how good a football player he is, including exactly how fast, strong, wise, determined and good at passing he is... that is okay?

[Lazaru5]

But knowing instantly how good a football player he is, including exactly how fast, strong, wise, determined and good at passing he is... that is okay?

attributes don't make the footballer good, playing to his strengths makes him good.. and he does what his manager tells him...

[x42bn6]

yes they do, within the first 5 mintues of any game with two clicks of the mouse you can easily see who is motivated and who is struggling on both teams through the assistant widgit. From there you build your own picture, no one knows everything about a person instantly, but within 5 games you can quickly make your own mind up based on the matches and feedback from your staff, much like real life, obviously we dont see things like body language and and facial expressions in FM, but in real life you dont get an ever changing list of how motivated every player on the pitch is, including the opposition. You will at some point click on the coach reports on your players, this is much like having a meeting with your staff in real life, you dont have to do every player at once and really you only need to click once, even poor coaches will give acurate enough feedback and that along side your own judgement you quickly build a picture of your players.

Why should the game need to start before we can see the motivation? Fergie knows the motivation of his players before they step onto the pitch. He knows the motivation of the players during the team talk, and afterwards. It is tedious to find the motivation before you decide how to do the team talk proper.

During staff meetings, does the assistant show you how each player copes under pressure and the level of pressure he is under now, in a simple way? Is this information readily-available when you come to do the team talk? No.

Before each game starts, again with ONE click of the mouse you can get feedback on who is looking scared, over confident, who is not fitting in with the squad, and who doesnt look interested, again hardly a chore.

There is no information on the level of pressure he can take, however. The level of pressure he is under now is just one part.

You seem to want this innate knowlage of your players instantly, no one gets that, Fergie, using your example, did not know that Hernandez would instantly fit into his squad and have the ability to handle the pressure of leading the attack in the big games, its come as a suprise to him, much like im sure he was suprised when he learned that Veron would struggle so badly to adapt to being in england, these are things he has learnt after time with the players.

No, but new signings are the exception, not the norm. For the players he's had for ages, he will know. That a new player will be less easy to understand is different.

You also have to consider how basic in the bigger scheme of things the emotions in FM are. A player in poor form will have poor moral, a player will get unhappy if he disagree's with your statment to the press or with your team talk or your private chat. You will also get a note on each players profile if such things have affected them. A player will not come into the dressing room after his wife has just left him the day before the cup final and look distraught so you dont need to worry about looking them in the face before the game, that goes for hundreds more senario's that could happen in real life, if they are unhappy its always obvious why.

You miss the point - a player's morale is not substitutable for pressure - that morale and pressure cannot be used in place of each other. They are of course correlated but happy and under pressure is possible, as is under no pressure but extremely upset. Morale cannot be used as a substitute for a player's current level of pressure and how he reacts to less or more.

Its a program and as such it will follow a pattern, one that is easy to learn and fairly in your face. No you dont see certain stats like pressure, big game, professionalism, consistancy, but you will learn them quickly if you pay attention, does any manager gain instant knowlage of each player, no of course not.

The manager never gains any virtual knowledge anyway, so this point is moot. You never see the actual hidden attributes, nor get a better picture - you are fully dependent on your assistant and coaches, which is unrealistic to begin with. That you cannot see immediately the effects of team talks (you have to send them out again) is unrealistic. That you cannot change tract during your team talks after suspecting something was incorrectly-said is unrealistic.

[Lazaru5]

Why should the game need to start before we can see the motivation? Fergie knows the motivation of his players before they step onto the pitch. He knows the motivation of the players during the team talk, and afterwards. It is tedious to find the motivation before you decide how to do the team talk proper.

During staff meetings, does the assistant show you how each player copes under pressure and the level of pressure he is under now, in a simple way? Is this information readily-available when you come to do the team talk? No.

There is no information on the level of pressure he can take, however. The level of pressure he is under now is just one part.

No, but new signings are the exception, not the norm. For the players he's had for ages, he will know. That a new player will be less easy to understand is different.

You miss the point - a player's morale is not substitutable for pressure - that morale and pressure cannot be used in place of each other. They are of course correlated but happy and under pressure is possible, as is under no pressure but extremely upset. Morale cannot be used as a substitute for a player's current level of pressure and how he reacts to less or more.

The manager never gains any virtual knowledge anyway, so this point is moot. You never see the actual hidden attributes, nor get a better picture - you are fully dependent on your assistant and coaches, which is unrealistic to begin with. That you cannot see immediately the effects of team talks (you have to send them out again) is unrealistic. That you cannot change tract during your team talks after suspecting something was incorrectly-said is unrealistic.

blah blah blurb blurb... complete nonsense... (well ok, perhaps not "complete")...

If I tell a player that I "expect a performance" and he blobs badly I know he can't handle pressure very well Similarly, if the opposition manager say "player X must be stopped" and his morale takes a nose-dive...

as I've said numerous times in this thread, the information is there, you just need to find (and remember) it...

[x42bn6]

blah blah blurb blurb... complete nonsense... (well ok, perhaps not "complete")...

I apologise for not arguing with this extremely articulate and well-constructed argument.

If I tell a player that I "expect a performance" and he blobs badly I know he can't handle pressure very well Similarly, if the opposition manager say "player X must be stopped" and his morale takes a nose-dive...

If a manager in reality says "I expect a performance" and he notices some of his players' heads slump, he would quickly take them to one side and say something to take the pressure off, or change direction in his team talks, as he suspects the pressure is too much. This is not possible in-game because:

1) It is not possible to see the immediate effects of team talks unless you send them out onto the pitch

2) It is not possible to easily see how your players will be affected by pressure, nor the levels of pressure they are currently under - despite the fact they are key to team talks

3) It is not possible to continuously reevaluate your team talk

4) It is only possible to know (roughly) after trial-and-error - despite the fact that trial-and-error is a terrible way of designing a game, although not to master

The feature is badly-designed, because:

1) In order to perform team talks, we need to know immediately know the players' current level of pressure and how they react to pressure

2) These features are not immediately available and are tedious to find

3) That you know in reality some of your players' attributes in reality does not mean it doesn't need to be displayed virtually

If they hid all the attributes and told you to watch the match-engine to deduce your players' attributes, there would be an outcry. You need to know your players' attributes to make tactical decisions - the game doesn't hide them from you, nor make them difficult to find, nor use the excuse of suspension of disbelief in order to justify a difficulty level or that revealing it would make the game "easy".

as I've said numerous times in this thread, the information is there, you just need to find (and remember) it...

Just because it is possible does not mean it is well-designed. It is possible to avoid the international withdrawals bug by using FMRTE - it doesn't mean that there is no problem.

If we needed to click a button 100 times to see the morale of our players for a team talk, it would be a terribly-designed game. By your argument, it is alright, because "the information is there, you just need to find (and remember) it". This is wrong.

[milnerpoint]

Why should the game need to start before we can see the motivation? Fergie knows the motivation of his players before they step onto the pitch. He knows the motivation of the players during the team talk, and afterwards. It is tedious to find the motivation before you decide how to do the team talk proper.

you make it sound like Fergie can read minds, even his team will go out on the pitch and suprise him, all managers will, i remember an interview with Wenger recently who said all week his team looked good and motivated, left the dressing room looking good and motivated, and did not play at all. It works in a different way in FM anyway, its not strictly to life, they gain their motivation as much based on the team they are playing as the things you do in game, ie press conferences and team talks, your looking at it in too much depth, motivation and moral are very much linked in FM, if your team has a very high moral the likely hood is they will be motivated for the next game, so if you see lots of green arrows you can bet with the right press conferences, team talks and importantly tactics, things will go well for you, you dont need to see their body language because in a sense you already know it, and for extra help your assistant is there.

During staff meetings, does the assistant show you how each player copes under pressure and the level of pressure he is under now, in a simple way? Is this information readily-available when you come to do the team talk? No.

There is no information on the level of pressure he can take, however. The level of pressure he is under now is just one part.

are you not expected to use your memory at all in this game? Within a few months you should know who in your team handles pressure well and who doesnt

No, but new signings are the exception, not the norm. For the players he's had for ages, he will know. That a new player will be less easy to understand is different.

i can tell you in my team exactly who i can count on and who i dont use in big games, i can tell you my main striker plays his best stuff during big games when i demand a performance from him, or that my most creatvie midfielder needs a bit more encouraging approach for these situations, i would easily say i know my team inside and out and nothing about their reactions or levels of motivation suprises me.

You miss the point - a player's morale is not substitutable for pressure - that morale and pressure cannot be used in place of each other. They are of course correlated but happy and under pressure is possible, as is under no pressure but extremely upset. Morale cannot be used as a substitute for a player's current level of pressure and how he reacts to less or more.

The manager never gains any virtual knowledge anyway, so this point is moot. You never see the actual hidden attributes, nor get a better picture - you are fully dependent on your assistant and coaches, which is unrealistic to begin with. That you cannot see immediately the effects of team talks (you have to send them out again) is unrealistic. That you cannot change tract during your team talks after suspecting something was incorrectly-said is unrealistic.

YOU gain knowlage, never mind the virtual version of you, you as a person have the knowlage, is it really too much to ask the user to use their memory a bit? I know the immediate effects of my team talks because i have learned what works for my players, no reaction i get from any player from any game suprises me now because i have gotten to know all of my players. I highly doubt a manager would go into a dressing room demanding a performance from his players only to see them looking pressurised and retract and say, "you know what boys just try your best" instead, you should know what your team talk is going to be before you give it, if not your failing as a manager to get to know your team.

see answers in bold.

[Lazaru5]

I apologise for not arguing with this extremely articulate and well-constructed argument.

Apology accepted

If a manager in reality says "I expect a performance" and he notices some of his players' heads slump, he would quickly take them to one side and say something to take the pressure off, or change direction in his team talks, as he suspects the pressure is too much. This is not possible in-game because:

1) It is not possible to see the immediate effects of team talks unless you send them out onto the pitch

2) It is not possible to easily see how your players will be affected by pressure, nor the levels of pressure they are currently under - despite the fact they are key to team talks

3) It is not possible to continuously reevaluate your team talk

4) It is only possible to know (roughly) after trial-and-error - despite the fact that trial-and-error is a terrible way of designing a game, although not to master

The feature is badly-designed, because:

1) In order to perform team talks, we need to know immediately know the players' current level of pressure and how they react to pressure

2) These features are not immediately available and are tedious to find

3) That you know in reality some of your players' attributes in reality does not mean it doesn't need to be displayed virtually

If they hid all the attributes and told you to watch the match-engine to deduce your players' attributes, there would be an outcry. You need to know your players' attributes to make tactical decisions - the game doesn't hide them from you, nor make them difficult to find, nor use the excuse of suspension of disbelief in order to justify a difficulty level or that revealing it would make the game "easy".

I concede that it's not "ideal" to use trial and error, however it's the way that most people go through life (you don't know unless you try/taste/do/etc) and as milnerpoint says "is it really too much to ask the user to use their memory a bit?" Once you know how your player reacts, you know how he reacts... simple! Yes it might mean you have to haul his ass off the pitch before he costs you the game, and yes he might play like a girl, but it's a one-off (or should be) because once he has blobbed you know he will blob so you don't use it again...

Conversely, if he plays out of his skin, gets a hat-trick, sets up 3 others and virtually single-handedly wins you the match you'll demand a performance at every opportunity. Take the hit (if there is one) because the knowledge you gain from it is invaluable in the longer term.

[x42bn6]

you make it sound like Fergie can read minds, even his team will go out on the pitch and suprise him, all managers will, i remember an interview with Wenger recently who said all week his team looked good and motivated, left the dressing room looking good and motivated, and did not play at all. It works in a different way in FM anyway, its not strictly to life, they gain their motivation as much based on the team they are playing as the things you do in game, ie press conferences and team talks, your looking at it in too much depth, motivation and moral are very much linked in FM, if your team has a very high moral the likely hood is they will be motivated for the next game, so if you see lots of green arrows you can bet with the right press conferences, team talks and importantly tactics, things will go well for you, you dont need to see their body language because in a sense you already know it, and for extra help your assistant is there.

Fergie is not perfect, nor is Wenger, but a manager in the game has no idea how his team talk has done until he actually sends them out onto the pitch. The equivalent would be blindfolding Fergie, letting him speak, and then removing the blindfold after the players are back on the pitch.

Fergie is also able to change his team talk plan during the team talk himself. If he sees a team talk isn't working, he can throw his script out of the window and then go with his gut feeling instead. This is not possible in reality.

are you not expected to use your memory at all in this game? Within a few months you should know who in your team handles pressure well and who doesnt

You shouldn't need to memorise the pressure attributes of every single one of your players, especially with regens, where we cannot use real-life (which is much easier to visualise and hence remember) experiences to judge a player better. The game needs to represent a manager's "virtual memory" too, and that includes exposing these attributes. If anything, it makes the game less tedious because you do not have to keep notes, nor go back and forth between screens to see what happened in previous matches.

i can tell you in my team exactly who i can count on and who i dont use in big games, i can tell you my main striker plays his best stuff during big games when i demand a performance from him, or that my most creatvie midfielder needs a bit more encouraging approach for these situations, i would easily say i know my team inside and out and nothing about their reactions or levels of motivation suprises me.

That's great, but anecdotal evidence is meaningless.

YOU gain knowlage, never mind the virtual version of you, you as a person have the knowlage, is it really too much to ask the user to use their memory a bit?

That you can remember team talk A for player B is appropriate is one thing - that you should be able to remember the pressure attributes for 23 of your first-teamers plus X youth players, and that you need to guess a rough level of current pressure for each of these players is a totally different thing altogether.

And yes, it is too much, believe it or not. The best games to play are those that require little thought to get into the game, although it could take a lot of thought to master (chess).

To deliver a good team talk to a player, you need to know how a player reacts to pressure and how much pressure that player is under. Therefore a game that is designed-well should immediately present those bits of information. "Too easy!" some cry - but like you said, this information is available, just hidden in real memory, coaching reports and match history - i.e. this makes the game easier to get into. The mastery is the difficult bit - letting your judgement pick the correct team-talk - given these bits of information.

Imagine doing team-talks where you didn't immediately know the player ratings of your players on that team-talk screen. By your argument, you could use your memory and knowledge to memorise the ratings before the screen appears, so it's alright - but there is a good argument for presenting this information, as it makes the feature easier to get into, although it doesn't necessarily give you much help in mastering it.

I know the immediate effects of my team talks because i have learned what works for my players, no reaction i get from any player from any game suprises me now because i have gotten to know all of my players. I highly doubt a manager would go into a dressing room demanding a performance from his players only to see them looking pressurised and retract and say, "you know what boys just try your best" instead, you should know what your team talk is going to be before you give it, if not your failing as a manager to get to know your team.

Related to the above. That you can use past experiences is great, but then again, that's mastery, not getting into a feature.

Think about a user, who has absolutely no idea about Football Manager, for the very first-time delivering a team-talk. I would see a newcomer thinking "Good luck" as a polite team-talk for a guaranteed win (we say "good luck" even though sometimes a person won't really need it, for example), which is not necessarily the most appropriate team talk as it puts doubt in the players' minds.

Does a new user have all the information he needs to make an appropriate decision? Not necessarily. We should not necessarily rely on the users clicking all over the place to gather information - a new user needs pressure and current pressure, in addition to morale, result and rating, to make an informed decision - therefore those should be available.

[x42bn6]

I concede that it's not "ideal" to use trial and error, however it's the way that most people go through life (you don't know unless you try/taste/do/etc) and as milnerpoint says "is it really too much to ask the user to use their memory a bit?" Once you know how your player reacts, you know how he reacts... simple! Yes it might mean you have to haul his ass off the pitch before he costs you the game, and yes he might play like a girl, but it's a one-off (or should be) because once he has blobbed you know he will blob so you don't use it again...

Conversely, if he plays out of his skin, gets a hat-trick, sets up 3 others and virtually single-handedly wins you the match you'll demand a performance at every opportunity. Take the hit (if there is one) because the knowledge you gain from it is invaluable in the longer term.

Covered above. Learning is great, but then again, the game isn't a school. The game should present information required to make a decision, then the real skill comes in picking the correct team-talk. This suggests that there should be several "correct" options, depending on what you need; which makes the game more fun, if anything.

[Svenc]

The thing is, FM needs a little more feedback and transparency, but at its core, when it gels, it gels hard. I just had an away match where I was facing the "impossible". Managing the vastly overperforming side that has an away day at the league's top dog, I was made loser even before the ball was kicked.

In the press conference prior to the game I insisted I'd just hope for the best and that my lads wouldn't embarass themselves. In the locker room, where there were no journalists and opposing managers listening, I did the opposite. I knew that the pitch in Rostock was long. There was bound to be space in midfield against a side that no question would try to pile up their players around my penalty area. Perfectly suited for some direct passes to my lightning quick striker who eventually scored the equalizer. I told my players to push up. To close down often. To regain the ball as quickly as possible. To not worry about the result, nothing to lose after all. The opposition looked as if they weren't prepared for what would come. In the end, it was their keeper, coincidentally (or NOT) made out as key player right there in the preview, that prevented me from taking all three points rather than just one.

There is no definite "right" or "wrong" way to handle things in FM - unless you're doing the outright stupid. People have tend to be a little obsessed with the idea that there was a definite answer to control everything - as evident in dozens of threads arguing whether slider X should be put in notch 11 or 12 prior to the tactics creator came about, which equally looked like something that was kind of missing the point.

[Deisler26]

I think if you don't look on the forums, you don't tend to notice 'bugs' or 'game-breakers'

Just my two pence.

[Motherlover]

I don't think i'll wade into this whole debate.

But I will say that as far as i'm concerned FM 11 is far from perfect, but personally I think it's the best iteration of the series yet (and I was a big fan of 07 and 08). As long as the quality of the 2D remains consistant and/or the 3D graphics reach FIFA-esque levels i'll remain happy to see evolution rather than revolution.

My major concern atm is AI team-building competance in the late game.

I think if you don't look on the forums, you don't tend to notice 'bugs' or 'game-breakers'

I get what you're saying but don't entirely agree. Some people (like me) find it hard not to notice the various flaws in any game, no matter how good. It's simply in my nature.

[Lazaru5]

Covered above. Learning is great, but then again, the game isn't a school. The game should present information required to make a decision, then the real skill comes in picking the correct team-talk. This suggests that there should be several "correct" options, depending on what you need; which makes the game more fun, if anything.

I think that you are being deliberately obtuse to either promote debate or a reaction, any newcomer reading this thread is going to gain numerous insights into the game that people like you and I have had to learn for ourselves.

Whoops, there's that word "learn" again... but then let's consider this: If every game was easy to play "straight out of the box" then nobody would bother buying them - "that game is too easy, I completed/beat it in a day" would be the norm. Whenever a new game is released, the people who buy it, the players of that particular genre, have to first learn how to play it before they can beat it. They then master it because they have learned how to... they don't know immediately (generally) how to master it, and most games only give you the basic instructions/outline - you still have to discover the rest as part of the game!

As for several correct options, there are... or rather there can be, it all depends on how you play the game. FM is as much a strategy game as your chess example, whether your strategy is to completely immerse yourself into the game world and all that it entails or your strategy is to buy a squad, assemble a back-room, download a tactic and holiday the game away - they're both a strategy...

I learnt very quickly that the media is a powerful tool, used correctly and my strategy usually involves heavy use of it. One can use the media/player interactions to influence the results not only of their own matches but also those of their rivals, those around them in the league, and more. You can use it to big up a player or to destroy him, you can make friends that can aid you in your quest to win games and enemies that will want you to fail. Strategic choices of friends can be a valuable resource in itself, especially if you need them to beat a title rival...

FM can be as basic or as deep as you choose to make it, you can use all the features or a few, you can choose to be aggressive or passive (and even submissive), you can tailor the game to fit into your lifestyle and the available time you have to play it, the combinations are endless. All of these different ways of playing the game create many different "correct options" for the user to choose from, it is then down to the user to pick one. If he/she is playing the game correctly (however they play it) the "correct option" is usually fairly obvious at least it has been for me.

I don't want the game to be any easier than it is. I don't want a team of unbeatable superstars (although I usually get one), I want the game to mirror reality as much as it possibly can do, and losing games is a reality for every team in the world as is managers/players making mistakes. For me the game is already "too easy" because it's not difficult to obtain a team of world-class players that are virtually unbeatable and dominant in all competitions - imagine if it was this easy in real-life...

[Jack Rudd]

Whoops, there's that word "learn" again... but then let's consider this: If every game was easy to play "straight out of the box" then nobody would bother buying them - "that game is too easy, I completed/beat it in a day" would be the norm. Whenever a new game is released, the people who buy it, the players of that particular genre, have to first learn how to play it before they can beat it. They then master it because they have learned how to... they don't know immediately (generally) how to master it, and most games only give you the basic instructions/outline - you still have to discover the rest as part of the game!

I think you're arguing against a point other than the point that is being made. Everybody in this thread agrees with you that the game shouldn't be easy to master. The point they're making is that in a well-designed game, it is easy to understand what a particular option does, but usually difficult to calculate the consequences of using that option; spending time mastering such a game involves becoming better at calculating the consequences. In Football Manager, it can be hard to understand what an option does, and that's frustrating-difficult rather than challenging-difficult.

[Lazaru5]

I think you're arguing against a point other than the point that is being made. Everybody in this thread agrees with you that the game shouldn't be easy to master. The point they're making is that in a well-designed game, it is easy to understand what a particular option does, but usually difficult to calculate the consequences of using that option; spending time mastering such a game involves becoming better at calculating the consequences. In Football Manager, it can be hard to understand what an option does, and that's frustrating-difficult rather than challenging-difficult.

I don't find it hard to understand though, maybe it's because I've played the game for so long (CM2) but I don't think that's it at all. I think I've just learned how to play the game properly by, get this, playing the game properly To me it's fairly obvious what a particular option does at any given time - it frustrates me that others don't seem able to emulate me... and that's what I don't understand...

[vlobben]

I don't find it hard to understand though, maybe it's because I've played the game for so long (CM2) but I don't think that's it at all. I think I've just learned how to play the game properly by, get this, playing the game properly To me it's fairly obvious what a particular option does at any given time - it frustrates me that others don't seem able to emulate me... and that's what I don't understand...

With over a thousand posts on the forum in six months, i think you can consider yourself above average interested in the game

[Lazaru5]

With over a thousand posts on the forum in six months, i think you can consider yourself above average interested in the game

your point being?

So I've made over 1000 posts, I'm addicted to the game... so what? *shrugs*

[x42bn6]

I think that you are being deliberately obtuse to either promote debate or a reaction, any newcomer reading this thread is going to gain numerous insights into the game that people like you and I have had to learn for ourselves.

Well, yes, people are clearly going to learn. However, I find that troubling if a newcomer needs to use this thread to understand how team talks work.

A game should not be work.

Whoops, there's that word "learn" again... but then let's consider this: If every game was easy to play "straight out of the box" then nobody would bother buying them - "that game is too easy, I completed/beat it in a day" would be the norm.

You are confusing "easy to get into" with "easy to master". A game that is "easy to get into" is a well-designed game (that might be harder than blindfold chess against a real-life grandmaster). The suggests I'm putting forward to have easy access (preferably 0 mouse clicks) to help team talks fall under the former, not the latter. Ideally, the team talk module should have plenty of possibilities with many right answers, some more right than others, two answers that are equally possibly correct but different (i.e. suggestion one is to raise pressure but fire up the players; suggestion two is the lower pressure but calm them down), and in that sense it would be difficult to master - which team talk should I take, says Rebecca Black?

That is the sort of module I think SI should aim for - to easily know what each team-talk does to a sensible degree, to know roughly the levels of pressure, morale and how they react to pressure, and being able to pick a tool X for objective Y. A sort of module that doesn't leave users coming to the forum wondering why their team-talks don't work and proceeding to be directed by forum members to this giant complicated thread on how team-talks work.

If you like, it should be easy to know what each team-talk does and to know roughly how your team will react to it, but difficult to definitely know and difficult to pick which option is the best.

Easy to get into, possibly difficult to master.

Whenever a new game is released, the people who buy it, the players of that particular genre, have to first learn how to play it before they can beat it. They then master it because they have learned how to... they don't know immediately (generally) how to master it, and most games only give you the basic instructions/outline - you still have to discover the rest as part of the game!

See above. Usually we consider games that are "easy" to be ones that are "easy to master". Games that are "easy to get into" are considered "nice" - think iPods, for example - excellent design and just intuitive to use. Games that are "difficult to get into" are considered "frustrating" - things like laggy controls, terrible graphics quality, poor font choices, or general vagueness (team-talks fall under the last category, to me, with my software design hat on).

As for several correct options, there are... or rather there can be, it all depends on how you play the game. FM is as much a strategy game as your chess example, whether your strategy is to completely immerse yourself into the game world and all that it entails or your strategy is to buy a squad, assemble a back-room, download a tactic and holiday the game away - they're both a strategy...

See above - you're confusing "easy to get into" with "easy to master".

I learnt very quickly that the media is a powerful tool, used correctly and my strategy usually involves heavy use of it. One can use the media/player interactions to influence the results not only of their own matches but also those of their rivals, those around them in the league, and more. You can use it to big up a player or to destroy him, you can make friends that can aid you in your quest to win games and enemies that will want you to fail. Strategic choices of friends can be a valuable resource in itself, especially if you need them to beat a title rival...

It's good that you've learnt, but you have years of experience. And these sorts of changes I'm proposing aren't really geared towards long-term users - who pretty much know all that needs to be known.

FM can be as basic or as deep as you choose to make it, you can use all the features or a few, you can choose to be aggressive or passive (and even submissive), you can tailor the game to fit into your lifestyle and the available time you have to play it, the combinations are endless. All of these different ways of playing the game create many different "correct options" for the user to choose from, it is then down to the user to pick one. If he/she is playing the game correctly (however they play it) the "correct option" is usually fairly obvious at least it has been for me.

There are many combinations, but that's not the point. The point is that it is difficult or tedious to know which is possibly-correct or possibly-wrong.

I don't want the game to be any easier than it is. I don't want a team of unbeatable superstars (although I usually get one), I want the game to mirror reality as much as it possibly can do, and losing games is a reality for every team in the world as is managers/players making mistakes. For me the game is already "too easy" because it's not difficult to obtain a team of world-class players that are virtually unbeatable and dominant in all competitions - imagine if it was this easy in real-life...

These changes won't really change how you play anyway. Since you roughly know the pressure levels of your players, all the game will do is confirm you are roughly correct, and you can continue playing the way you normally do.

[Lazaru5]

You are confusing "easy to get into" with "easy to master". A game that is "easy to get into" is a well-designed game (that might be harder than blindfold chess against a real-life grandmaster). The suggests I'm putting forward to have easy access (preferably 0 mouse clicks) to help team talks fall under the former, not the latter. Ideally, the team talk module should have plenty of possibilities with many right answers, some more right than others, two answers that are equally possibly correct but different (i.e. suggestion one is to raise pressure but fire up the players; suggestion two is the lower pressure but calm them down), and in that sense it would be difficult to master - which team talk should I take, says Rebecca Black?

The game is incredibly "easy to get into", you don't even have to do anything beyond create your manager profile and pick a club to manage. Your assistant will pick the team if you ask him to and give the team-talk too, all you have to do is press continue... It's then when you realise that the game, whilst easy to get into, is far more complex than it first looks

That is the sort of module I think SI should aim for - to easily know what each team-talk does to a sensible degree, to know roughly the levels of pressure, morale and how they react to pressure, and being able to pick a tool X for objective Y. A sort of module that doesn't leave users coming to the forum wondering why their team-talks don't work and proceeding to be directed by forum members to this giant complicated thread on how team-talks work.

If you like, it should be easy to know what each team-talk does and to know roughly how your team will react to it, but difficult to definitely know and difficult to pick which option is the best.

Easy to get into, possibly difficult to master.

This is almost exactly what we have now, all you have to do is remember the different reactions.. The team-talks follow a logical sequence of events leading up to it. The direction this sequence takes is directly affected by the human player, or not as the case may be. Whichever path the human wishes to take, whichever team-talk he/she is wanting to give is all controllable by the human via the various tools provided in the game.

The human has to decide the route they wish to take for a particular game, if they want to tell their players they expect a win then they should be confident of victory publicly "the players share my confidence, we will win this game" or similar. This confidence would rub off on the players - i.e. they'd believe your hype and the likely result would be a positive one. Similarly, if they were to want to give a "pressure is off" team-talk, they would publicly play down the chances of their side, even going so far as to expect defeat (at least publicly) which would reduce the pressure on the players to perform long before you actually told them "pressure is off" resulting in a more relaxed performance and a positive result again.

The human manipulates the game, the game follows logical sequences, 2+2=4

See above. Usually we consider games that are "easy" to be ones that are "easy to master". Games that are "easy to get into" are considered "nice" - think iPods, for example - excellent design and just intuitive to use. Games that are "difficult to get into" are considered "frustrating" - things like laggy controls, terrible graphics quality, poor font choices, or general vagueness (team-talks fall under the last category, to me, with my software design hat on).

See above - you're confusing "easy to get into" with "easy to master".

Ditto.. (see above)

It's good that you've learnt, but you have years of experience. And these sorts of changes I'm proposing aren't really geared towards long-term users - who pretty much know all that needs to be known.

There are many combinations, but that's not the point. The point is that it is difficult or tedious to know which is possibly-correct or possibly-wrong.

It is neither difficult nor tedious, IMHO, in fact I find it incredibly rewarding when I do "unlock" the secrets of my treasures... (which team-talks motivate who..).

My 'years of experience' are largely irrelevant as FM is totally different to the CM era when it comes to media/player interaction. In the old days a good old media rant at an opposition manager was often all that was needed to fire your team up, now it is more complex to get the same result as the players personalities are more influential now than then. What fires one player up can unsettle 3 others causing them to get butterflies. If the fired up player relies on any of those three for service...

Knowing how to guard against such things or how to fix it when it occurs is the key to being a good manager. Everybody has to start somewhere, you can only learn by making mistakes, that's the general idea of it. You make the mistake, you learn not to do that again... the positive times will always far outweigh the negative if you do.

These changes won't really change how you play anyway. Since you roughly know the pressure levels of your players, all the game will do is confirm you are roughly correct, and you can continue playing the way you normally do.

Just what changes exactly would you like to see? I've re-read the thread and am still unclear as to what you want to see included. Personally I think that the media/player interaction/team-talks part of the game works pretty well.

==========

On a side note...

223 replies to this thread. Here's the OP

Discuss.

Thanks.

[Guest]

This is almost exactly what we have now, all you have to do is remember the different reactions.. The team-talks follow a logical sequence of events leading up to it. The direction this sequence takes is directly affected by the human player, or not as the case may be. Whichever path the human wishes to take, whichever team-talk he/she is wanting to give is all controllable by the human via the various tools provided in the game.

The human has to decide the route they wish to take for a particular game, if they want to tell their players they expect a win then they should be confident of victory publicly "the players share my confidence, we will win this game" or similar. This confidence would rub off on the players - i.e. they'd believe your hype and the likely result would be a positive one. Similarly, if they were to want to give a "pressure is off" team-talk, they would publicly play down the chances of their side, even going so far as to expect defeat (at least publicly) which would reduce the pressure on the players to perform long before you actually told them "pressure is off" resulting in a more relaxed performance and a positive result again.

What a load of crap. You might want to believe its that way to make you feel better that your actually not just picking a basic multi choice generic answer and its some how interlinked into the decisions you made a few weeks ago, but trust me its not that complicated. You have 6 or 7 options. Keep saying the same one and eventually it runs dry of power. I go expect a win away from home even against teams I'm predicted to get stuffed off and still win. Because thats the one thats working that month.

[Guest]

Off topic this forum is broke for me and has been for months. Evertytime my reply fills the box it starts scolling about by its self and makes it impossible to type anymore.

[Lazaru5]

What a load of crap. You might want to believe its that way to make you feel better that your actually not just picking a basic multi choice generic answer and its some how interlinked into the decisions you made a few weeks ago, but trust me its not that complicated. You have 6 or 7 options. Keep saying the same one and eventually it runs dry of power. I go expect a win away from home even against teams I'm predicted to get stuffed off and still win. Because thats the one thats working that month.

OK, if you say so.. (but you're wrong )

[BiggusD]

This thread has gone on long enough with little progress now, so I think it is time to conclude:

The game interface is not providing enough information to the human manager to allow him/her to make a logical decision on which team talk (or player talk) to choose, before - by experimentation over a prolonged period of time - he or she gets to know the team's players. Thus making it necessary to do said experimentation.

There is no argument over this.

The argument is whether or not it is necessary that SI makes that information available to its customers. That is a gameplay argument, not an argument over realism or the level of difficulty. Will the gameplay improve if the human managers somehow could readily find information via either extended personality descriptions or statistics, or is figuring out these things yourself an integral part of playing FM?

My opinion is that in a game where you get to know all there is to know about a player's ability on the football pitch, there must be a way to provide information also about how a player reacts to expectations and pressure without making decisions a matter of math. What about removing the ability star ratings and rather give us all the hidden mental attributes so we'd have to make that judgement ourselves (but with the help of our staff)?

[Lazaru5]

This thread has gone on long enough with little progress now, so I think it is time to conclude:

The game interface is not providing enough information to the human manager to allow him/her to make a logical decision on which team talk (or player talk) to choose, before - by experimentation over a prolonged period of time - he or she gets to know the team's players. Thus making it necessary to do said experimentation.

There is no argument over this.

The argument is whether or not it is necessary that SI makes that information available to its customers. That is a gameplay argument, not an argument over realism or the level of difficulty. Will the gameplay improve if the human managers somehow could readily find information via either extended personality descriptions or statistics, or is figuring out these things yourself an integral part of playing FM?

My opinion is that in a game where you get to know all there is to know about a player's ability on the football pitch, there must be a way to provide information also about how a player reacts to expectations and pressure without making decisions a matter of math. What about removing the ability star ratings and rather give us all the hidden mental attributes so we'd have to make that judgement ourselves (but with the help of our staff)?

This is what manager's have to do in real-life... when they first take over a club *most times* it's because the team is under-performing so morale/confidence is low. Unless they already know the players (like Micky Adams @ Port Vale) then they have no idea how to motivate them (like Micky Adams at Sheffield United). If you don't learn, you fail... (like...)

[BiggusD]

This is what manager's have to do in real-life... when they first take over a club *most times* it's because the team is under-performing so morale/confidence is low. Unless they already know the players (like Micky Adams @ Port Vale) then they have no idea how to motivate them (like Micky Adams at Sheffield United). If you don't learn, you fail... (like...)

Yes you think that being handed this information would ruin your suspension of disbelief then? That would be a gameplay debate. The realism argument is sort of lost in translation because the entire idea that you can know any attribute as accurately as in this game as a real life manager is unrealistic.

[Svenc]

This is obvious for most of you, but coming from FM 2008, I've noticed that there have been made already loads of improvements regarding player feedback and how to go about player/manager interaction. Some of it is instantly to be found. such as the assistant feedback. Some of it is a bit hidden, like player reactions to manager mind games, which give you an idea what might work and what not on a particular player. So, in all fairness, it's not as if SI aren't trying to improve on that. To me it's one of the most interesting areas of the game, I used it heavily when I took a side that was doomed to be a relegation contender by the media to a promotion spot (not that I expected to get that far, heh). It's one of the more interesting areas of the game to me as the whole business of buying and scouting talents is a bit simplish in parts - the further you go down the league pyramid, the more simple it looks to be as the further you go down, the worse your team will be - and the easier it is to find players that can improve your squad, often without opposing managers interfering.

[looknohands]

Off topic this forum is broke for me and has been for months. Evertytime my reply fills the box it starts scolling about by its self and makes it impossible to type anymore.

Before you reply to anything, try clicking the "compatibility view" button next to the address bar (assuming you're using Internet Explorer.) It looks like a piece of paper torn in half.

[aggressive minor]

They get worse and worse and more complicated every version

[Lazaru5]

Yes you think that being handed this information would ruin your suspension of disbelief then? That would be a gameplay debate. The realism argument is sort of lost in translation because the entire idea that you can know any attribute as accurately as in this game as a real life manager is unrealistic.

I think that considering the facts that SI have to consider the game's playability as well as the 'realism' factor they have done a pretty good job of balancing the two. Sure, IRL we don't accurately know in a score out of 20 any player's particular attributes but we know that Lionel Messi is a better dribbler than most of his contemparies and that Arsenal's goalkeepers are all rubbish... the game just converts it into numbers for us to aid playability *shrugs*

I feel it's a fair compromise

[x42bn6]

The game is incredibly "easy to get into", you don't even have to do anything beyond create your manager profile and pick a club to manage. Your assistant will pick the team if you ask him to and give the team-talk too, all you have to do is press continue... It's then when you realise that the game, whilst easy to get into, is far more complex than it first looks

Not this feature.

This is almost exactly what we have now, all you have to do is remember the different reactions.. The team-talks follow a logical sequence of events leading up to it. The direction this sequence takes is directly affected by the human player, or not as the case may be. Whichever path the human wishes to take, whichever team-talk he/she is wanting to give is all controllable by the human via the various tools provided in the game.

How can a newcomer do that easily? A game should require as little effort as possible.

The human has to decide the route they wish to take for a particular game, if they want to tell their players they expect a win then they should be confident of victory publicly "the players share my confidence, we will win this game" or similar. This confidence would rub off on the players - i.e. they'd believe your hype and the likely result would be a positive one. Similarly, if they were to want to give a "pressure is off" team-talk, they would publicly play down the chances of their side, even going so far as to expect defeat (at least publicly) which would reduce the pressure on the players to perform long before you actually told them "pressure is off" resulting in a more relaxed performance and a positive result again.

The human manipulates the game, the game follows logical sequences, 2+2=4

This doesn't always work though - if you use "we will win this game" sometimes the players will react badly to it, and the user has no way of recognising it beyond lots of analysis and memorisation - not a good feature.

It is neither difficult nor tedious, IMHO, in fact I find it incredibly rewarding when I do "unlock" the secrets of my treasures... (which team-talks motivate who..).

The latter part is unrelated to the former, and you are a long-term user of the game.

My 'years of experience' are largely irrelevant as FM is totally different to the CM era when it comes to media/player interaction. In the old days a good old media rant at an opposition manager was often all that was needed to fire your team up, now it is more complex to get the same result as the players personalities are more influential now than then. What fires one player up can unsettle 3 others causing them to get butterflies. If the fired up player relies on any of those three for service...

Knowing how to guard against such things or how to fix it when it occurs is the key to being a good manager. Everybody has to start somewhere, you can only learn by making mistakes, that's the general idea of it. You make the mistake, you learn not to do that again... the positive times will always far outweigh the negative if you do.

Well no, games aren't about "learning" - they should never be. If a user continuously makes mistakes by not understanding something, then arguably the feature is broken. This is the case when users are constantly pointed to pages and pages of analysis on team talks.

Just what changes exactly would you like to see? I've re-read the thread and am still unclear as to what you want to see included. Personally I think that the media/player interaction/team-talks part of the game works pretty well.

- More choices of team-talks.

- A meter/number/something on the team-talk screen showing the level of pressure the players are under, with how they react to pressure.

- The ability to do many "small talks" in one team-talk, and being able to see how your players react immediately so you can pick your next "small talk" to alleviate this.

- Team-talks having a tooltip or something beside them showing what this team talk will do, without showing the results (i.e. "will increase pressure, but will increase focus" - without saying "Clichy will go to pieces if you say this")

- More team-talk history readily-available during the team-talk (i.e. "Last match you said X and Y happened. Similar things have happened this season...")

[Lazaru5]

The game is incredibly "easy to get into", you don't even have to do anything beyond create your manager profile and pick a club to manage. Your assistant will pick the team if you ask him to and give the team-talk too, all you have to do is press continue... It's then when you realise that the game, whilst easy to get into, is far more complex than it first looks

Not this feature.

This is almost exactly what we have now, all you have to do is remember the different reactions.. The team-talks follow a logical sequence of events leading up to it. The direction this sequence takes is directly affected by the human player, or not as the case may be. Whichever path the human wishes to take, whichever team-talk he/she is wanting to give is all controllable by the human via the various tools provided in the game.

How can a newcomer do that easily? A game should require as little effort as possible.

How is the game not easy to get into? You can set your assistant to handle training, team-talks, match-prep, friendlies, organising friendlies, contract renewals, the reserves, the youth team, etc... you can also ask him or a coach to pick the team for you, a new player literally only has to press "continue" to "get into the game". As they increase in confidence they can then take more control of things, I'm sure that this is the way the game is designed. i.e to ensure a total newbie can play without any difficulties and learn as they go... Starting a save in this way, that is with the assistant doing everything you can ask him to do, would be the "easy" mode were there one.

The human has to decide the route they wish to take for a particular game, if they want to tell their players they expect a win then they should be confident of victory publicly "the players share my confidence, we will win this game" or similar. This confidence would rub off on the players - i.e. they'd believe your hype and the likely result would be a positive one. Similarly, if they were to want to give a "pressure is off" team-talk, they would publicly play down the chances of their side, even going so far as to expect defeat (at least publicly) which would reduce the pressure on the players to perform long before you actually told them "pressure is off" resulting in a more relaxed performance and a positive result again.

The human manipulates the game, the game follows logical sequences, 2+2=4

This doesn't always work though - if you use "we will win this game" sometimes the players will react badly to it, and the user has no way of recognising it beyond lots of analysis and memorisation - not a good feature.

If the manager has specifically aimed for a particular team-talk, i.e. through media and player interaction, and it is appropriate for the match in question then it very rarely causes a bad reaction. I concede that sometimes there are adverse reactions, but how many times do you see or hear of a manager IRL saying that they were bemused at their teams poor performance? It's football, it happens IRL, it happens in FM.. sometimes

It is neither difficult nor tedious, IMHO, in fact I find it incredibly rewarding when I do "unlock" the secrets of my treasures... (which team-talks motivate who..).

The latter part is unrelated to the former, and you are a long-term user of the game.

I don't see how they are unrelated? If I discover that "expect a performance" or "pick up where you left off" following that performance will ensure that my centre-back will play a blinder virtually every game home or away, then I'm damn well going to use it... I have "discovered" the way to motivate him... Sure there are rare occasions where he puts in a 7 or even worse has a stinker, but if the rule of thumb dictates that the positive outweighs the negative then that is the team-talk to use on him... I find it rewarding to find things like this out, especially when as a direct result of my 'team-talks' the team wins/plays incredibly well. As I link my team-talks to the media and player interaction then I can also say with a fairly high degree of certainty that I also got those elements of the game correct too. In short - "I 'beat' the game" (for one match)

Well no, games aren't about "learning" - they should never be. If a user continuously makes mistakes by not understanding something, then arguably the feature is broken. This is the case when users are constantly pointed to pages and pages of analysis on team talks.

I don't see how games cannot be about learning? If someone has never played a particular game or type of game before then how are they supposed to 'know' how to play it? I couldn't play lots of games, including CM2, and I either learnt how to play them (as in the case of CM2) or discarded them. I didn't then go out and buy the next release of the games I discarded to see if I could "get into the game" - once I knew I couldn't play them, I couldn't play them.

- More choices of team-talks.

- A meter/number/something on the team-talk screen showing the level of pressure the players are under, with how they react to pressure.

- The ability to do many "small talks" in one team-talk, and being able to see how your players react immediately so you can pick your next "small talk" to alleviate this.

- Team-talks having a tooltip or something beside them showing what this team talk will do, without showing the results (i.e. "will increase pressure, but will increase focus" - without saying "Clichy will go to pieces if you say this")

- More team-talk history readily-available during the team-talk (i.e. "Last match you said X and Y happened. Similar things have happened this season...")

1. I can see a benefit of this, to a point... the problem is that you haven't actually given that team-talk until you press "Go to match"/"Play". If it were possible to see the player's reactions to a particular team-talk before you actually gave it this would be "unrealistic". I suppose it could be possible to introduce a dynamic morale and link it to the various team-talks but again, this is making the game far too easy in the extreme...

I do like the idea of being able to perhaps give several different "group" team-talks though but I don't want it to run into full-blown conversation.

2. Yes! +1 absolutely! Preferably a complete season's worth, or even a complete history since that particular ass-man has been with you... (maybe too much?)

the others, nah... I don't think we need a pressure meter, we discover through trial and error/morale changes how a player reacts to pressure. Imagine how much a real-life manager would like such a meter on his player's foreheads... Similarly, I don't think it's possible to introduce a tool-tip in this way simply because each team-talk will have a different effect in different matches especially if the build-up is different... Course, if the tool-tips can be made dynamically linked to the build-ups and thus be accurate 100% of the time and can be switched off in settings then I'm all for it

Oh, and more choices? How do you mean? I'd like the team-talks to reflect the game more, sometimes the phrase I want to say, either as a collective or an individual, isn't there and this frustrates me a touch. As I watch the full 90, I'm considering my half-time talks as the game goes on, i.e. what I am going to say to who and as a whole, when half-time arrives and the phrases I want are unavailable it does cause me a few problems...

[Svenc]

How is the game not easy to get into?

FM is not easy to get into in that sense that there is a heck of a lot of buttons to push - and there are a heck of a lot things happening around you at any given point in time, be it assistant feedback, club legends pointing fingers on the players performance, opposing managers to respond to, one of your wingers demanding a better contract, etc. It is a very "interactive" thingamabob, and some of the detail can be overwhelming at first, in particular compared to competing management games out there.

I also really think the documentation the game ships with is utter shambles. The old manual was so-so, and now it's for the most part this very same so-so manual that is being touted as "online manual".

However, this whole team-talks thing is hugely exaggerated anyway. Personally I wouldn't necessarily disagree that feedback needs some improvement - however, for all the moaning about how a supposed "wrong" talk could utterly destroy your team, and how either the tactical micromanagement or motivational aspects of the game had long since overpowered the good old "Buy some decent players and just field 'em" mechanics, it seems pretty straight for even total newcomers to win the championship even when they're not picking the total top dog of a league. In the German FM community, I've been witnessing newcomers picking Borussia Dortmund and winning the Bundesliga multiple times in the last couple of months. Some of those newbies going all the way and winning the Champions League straight away. And one of them even reporting a 30 matches run unbeaten.

My first ever FM was 2008 - and throughout 20 or so seasons I didn't seriously overperform with any side, but I wasn't outright sacked once either even in seasons that were beyond hopeless. But that could have been FM 2008's confidence mechanics, being on my fourth season in FM 2011, I'll have to wait and see. To secure promotion spots I didn't bother with any team talk guide along the way, something I'll continue to do, because simply "cracking" game mechanics so that every talk goes your way when it's not supposed to be that way is not my idea of having fun. A lot of guides seem to be written in that mindset or thereabouts, stress-testing training effects via "Cheating utilities" such as FMRTE, etc.

[Avelives]

However, this whole team-talks thing is hugely exaggerated anyway. Personally I wouldn't necessarily disagree that feedback needs some improvement - however, for all the moaning about how a supposed "wrong" talk could utterly destroy your team, and how either the tactical micromanagement or motivational aspects of the game had long since overpowered the good old "Buy some decent players and just field 'em" mechanics, it seems pretty straight for even total newcomers to win the championship even when they're not picking the total top dog of a league. In the German FM community, I've been witnessing newcomers picking Borussia Dortmund and winning the Bundesliga multiple times in the last couple of months. Some of those newbies going all the way and winning the Champions League straight away. And one of them even reporting a 30 matches run unbeaten.

Agree with this, and its a forum argument problem. As points get laboured more and more, so both sides of the argument become more and more fervent and extreme in the way they present the problem/solution.

Id agree with x42bn6 that generally for newcomers FM is a little counter intuitive at times and needs better feedback mechanics, but I dont think it makes the game unplayable. Indeed I think this is one of the more streamlined easy to master versions of FM for a few years.

[Lazaru5]

FM is not easy to get into in that sense that there is a heck of a lot of buttons to push - and there are a heck of a lot things happening around you at any given point in time, be it assistant feedback, club legends pointing fingers on the players performance, opposing managers to respond to, one of your wingers demanding a better contract, etc. It is a very "interactive" thingamabob, and some of the detail can be overwhelming at first, in particular compared to competing management games out there.

I also really think the documentation the game ships with is utter shambles. The old manual was so-so, and now it's for the most part this very same so-so manual that is being touted as "online manual".

However, this whole team-talks thing is hugely exaggerated anyway. Personally I wouldn't necessarily disagree that feedback needs some improvement - however, for all the moaning about how a supposed "wrong" talk could utterly destroy your team, and how either the tactical micromanagement or motivational aspects of the game had long since overpowered the good old "Buy some decent players and just field 'em" mechanics, it seems pretty straight for even total newcomers to win the championship even when they're not picking the total top dog of a league. In the German FM community, I've been witnessing newcomers picking Borussia Dortmund and winning the Bundesliga multiple times in the last couple of months. Some of those newbies going all the way and winning the Champions League straight away. And one of them even reporting a 30 matches run unbeaten.

My first ever FM was 2008 - and throughout 20 or so seasons I didn't seriously overperform with any side, but I wasn't outright sacked once either even in seasons that were beyond hopeless. But that could have been FM 2008's confidence mechanics, being on my fourth season in FM 2011, I'll have to wait and see. To secure promotion spots I didn't bother with any team talk guide along the way, something I'll continue to do, because simply "cracking" game mechanics so that every talk goes your way when it's not supposed to be that way is not my idea of having fun. A lot of guides seem to be written in that mindset or thereabouts, stress-testing training effects via "Cheating utilities" such as FMRTE, etc.

You contradict yourself... on the one hand you say that FM is "not easy to get into" and then a few lines later you tell stories of newcomers doing just that...

...it seems pretty straight for even total newcomers to win the championship even when they're not picking the total top dog of a league. In the German FM community, I've been witnessing newcomers picking Borussia Dortmund and winning the Bundesliga multiple times in the last couple of months. Some of those newbies going all the way and winning the Champions League straight away. And one of them even reporting a 30 matches run unbeaten.

Surely if newcomers are being successful then the game is easy to play, no?

[Svenc]

You contradict yourself... on the one hand you say that FM is "not easy to get into" and then a few lines later you tell stories of newcomers doing just that...

Surely if newcomers are being successful then the game is easy to play, no?

Easy to be successful at least given a proper squad of players - not necessarily easy to get to grips with the mechanics. Mastering all the details, team talks, tactical tools, the old sliders can be incredibly rewarding - but it simply isn't necessary to have success. In my first FM save ever I won a promotion spot simply by having a decent squad, and else by leaving almost every_single_sliders straight in the middle as they were by default - and this was in FM 2008, were slider mastering was supposed to be mandatory for any kind of success.

[milnerpoint]

Easy to be successful at least given a proper squad of players - not necessarily easy to get to grips with the mechanics. Mastering all the details, team talks, tactical tools, the old sliders can be incredibly rewarding - but it simply isn't necessary to have success. In my first FM save ever I won a promotion spot simply by having a decent squad, and else by leaving almost every_single_sliders straight in the middle as they were by default - and this was in FM 2008, were slider mastering was supposed to be mandatory for any kind of success.

I dont think i ever really messed around with the sliders that much and since the TC came out i have only ever used that as its much easier and quicker.

I do agree SI could definitely release more info on the game and what does what, but it is very easy to get into and to get to grips with if you have a basic knowledge of football. You dont really have to do anything except press continue if you dont want too. The more you put in the more you get out. Just like i can blast through the campain on COD on easy without having to learn to aim most of the time, if i want to do well at it i have to learn the game mechanics.

I bet most of us could sit down and show someone the basics of FM in half an hour, if that, much like my pals could show me round the new COD maps quite quickly, if i choose to learn from that is up to me really.

[Lazaru5]

Easy to be successful at least given a proper squad of players - not necessarily easy to get to grips with the mechanics. Mastering all the details, team talks, tactical tools, the old sliders can be incredibly rewarding - but it simply isn't necessary to have success. In my first FM save ever I won a promotion spot simply by having a decent squad, and else by leaving almost every_single_sliders straight in the middle as they were by default - and this was in FM 2008, were slider mastering was supposed to be mandatory for any kind of success.

This is what I'm trying to say, the game isn't difficult to be successful at regardless of your past experience. It is difficult to master the game, but then all games are (or should be).

A newcomer can, as you said, be successful without doing very much at all... It is this success that should then encourage that newcomer to delve deeper into the mechanics of the game; and this is where the learning curve comes in as the player attempts to get to grips with the game in it's entirety. I don't deny that the way that I micro-manage the game is probably too much for most gamers to learn or want to learn but the game is designed in such a way that you can choose to do as much or as little as you want and still achieve the same end result - i.e. managerial success. I see people play a season a night and have incredible success where it takes me ages to play a season (Game Time: 72 days, 13 hours, 52 minutes - Game Date: 01/12/2012 i.e. 2.5 seasons). I still eventually achieve that success and I do it with less frustrations simply because I almost fully 'understand' the game and the way it works.

I understand that if I expect my players to beat Man U at OT they're likely to blow a hissy fit and play like toddlers... I also understand that some players react differently to others when told the same thing! I know all this, I understand all this, and I try to remember who does what in order for me to be able to fully enjoy the game. By knowing my players and their reactions to x, y and z I can also 'manage' them effectively

[Svenc]

the game is designed in such a way that you can choose to do as much or as little as you want and still achieve the same end result - i.e. managerial success. I see people play a season a night and have incredible success where it takes me ages to play a season (Game Time: 72 days, 13 hours, 52 minutes - Game Date: 01/12/2012 i.e. 2.5 seasons). I still eventually achieve that success and I do it with less frustrations simply because I almost fully 'understand' the game and the way it works.

That is something I agree with, and it's nice. The more you put into the game, the more you get back. However, there are also parts in the game where I question SI's design philosophy. On the one hand, there's so much detail put in the game that is simulated and you can opt to care about: pitch sizes, the character of the opposing manager, the characters of your own players, squad gelling and so on and so on. And yet, a lot of that can often be easily abused.

Your ambitious striker who wants to move to a bigger club in February may pose zero trouble after you tell him to shut up come start of next season, the defense talent who claimed a wage increase in March occasionally just goes back to normal business a few weeks later, transfer budgets can be quadrupled by paying every_single_transfer in installments, boards do not care when managers abuse their transfer and wage budgets and risk the club's longterm stability, neither do their care when the guy just hired sacks the entire squad and installs a completely new one - nor does the press, for that matter. Single scouts no matter their attributes can give solid information on dozens of players in the space of three weeks, etc. In short: If you persist, chances are FM can play out just like your average footie management game, rather than the simulation of the sports it aims to be. The result is that some players who started with FM 2010 playing the game can get this far by now with ease, it seems.

The detail in FM is awesome, the impact of some of it, like the team talks and player morale etc. yet widely exaggerated by the community - but that is my experience with it. More yet: For FM to be the "simulation" it is to be claimed to be by Miles Jacobson and company, both newcomers and longterm players alike may have to set themselves rules quickly at some point, because there are many loopholes to be exposed all around. This is how LLM probably came to be.

For the record: I do enjoy FM 2011 even more than my first in the series, FM 2008, and it is the most competent football management game I have played in over twenty years of make-believe football management. Despite it all.

[x42bn6]

How is the game not easy to get into? You can set your assistant to handle training, team-talks, match-prep, friendlies, organising friendlies, contract renewals, the reserves, the youth team, etc... you can also ask him or a coach to pick the team for you, a new player literally only has to press "continue" to "get into the game". As they increase in confidence they can then take more control of things, I'm sure that this is the way the game is designed. i.e to ensure a total newbie can play without any difficulties and learn as they go... Starting a save in this way, that is with the assistant doing everything you can ask him to do, would be the "easy" mode were there one.

Because it is not necessarily intuitive. One example is, for example, the fact that sometimes the best team-talk is no team-talk at all when things are going "OK". Can you imagine Fergie going into a changing room, looking at his players, and walking out again? Another, which I have mentioned time-and-time again is the fact that it is tedious to find out the level of pressure on your players without having to memorise, deduce and flip back-and-forth between screens - and the level of pressure the players are under is important to a team-talk.

The UI can always be improved to make the game more accessible.

"Easy to get into" is, in a sense, the accessibility of the game, not the ease of which a player can make a correct decision. Therefore I'd argue things like getting your assistant to do it are closer to mastering the game, rather than getting into it. "Easy to get into" in that sense would be a clear option in an expected position (i.e. preferences) that is easy to understand in what it does. If you like, "easy to get into" has very little impact on actually making decisions - it impacts how things are seen and understood.

If the manager has specifically aimed for a particular team-talk, i.e. through media and player interaction, and it is appropriate for the match in question then it very rarely causes a bad reaction. I concede that sometimes there are adverse reactions, but how many times do you see or hear of a manager IRL saying that they were bemused at their teams poor performance? It's football, it happens IRL, it happens in FM.. sometimes

You're missing the point - I've already agreed that sometimes things go badly. It's just that how the user knows is unrealistic - if I say something bad to a crowd, I will quickly know and can correct myself by saying something better (i.e a bad joke followed by a good one). At present, I can only say a bad joke to the crowd and will only realise when people start boycotting my shows. In addition, I have to jump through hoops and ladders to get these statistics.

That is the crux of the issue - a manager only knows the effects of the team-talk after the players go back onto the pitch again, and cannot change track during a team-talk - it's one option or nothing. Unrealistic.

I don't see how they are unrelated? If I discover that "expect a performance" or "pick up where you left off" following that performance will ensure that my centre-back will play a blinder virtually every game home or away, then I'm damn well going to use it... I have "discovered" the way to motivate him... Sure there are rare occasions where he puts in a 7 or even worse has a stinker, but if the rule of thumb dictates that the positive outweighs the negative then that is the team-talk to use on him... I find it rewarding to find things like this out, especially when as a direct result of my 'team-talks' the team wins/plays incredibly well. As I link my team-talks to the media and player interaction then I can also say with a fairly high degree of certainty that I also got those elements of the game correct too. In short - "I 'beat' the game" (for one match)

You find it incredibly rewarding to have unlocked a good "tactic", but this "tactic" might be difficult to understand, or tedious in itself.

"Mastery" and "getting into" are very different.

I don't see how games cannot be about learning? If someone has never played a particular game or type of game before then how are they supposed to 'know' how to play it? I couldn't play lots of games, including CM2, and I either learnt how to play them (as in the case of CM2) or discarded them. I didn't then go out and buy the next release of the games I discarded to see if I could "get into the game" - once I knew I couldn't play them, I couldn't play them.

A game is meant to be fun and the less a user needs to learn or memorise, the more they can focus on actually playing and enjoying the game. If you like, if we could put our real-life brains into the virtual reality of the game, and all the information held in our brain could easily be accessed via the game, the more we could dedicate our brain power to other things, like multi-tasking.

I simply see the team-talk feature as unrealistic and somewhat tedious. My belief is that it relies somewhat on memorisation of many things for many players, whilst hiding abstractions of pressure away from the user which we quite frankly should know as managers.

Of course, learning to master a game is a totally different story. Football Manager can be difficult to master but can always be made easier to get into, if it means exposing more attributes that should be hidden, or giving more feedback, or by making the team-talks more realistic by allowing more options and a stepwise approach.

A user should be able to have a solid amount of important information that is realistic to make his or her decisions - this is not the case here.

1. I can see a benefit of this, to a point... the problem is that you haven't actually given that team-talk until you press "Go to match"/"Play". If it were possible to see the player's reactions to a particular team-talk before you actually gave it this would be "unrealistic". I suppose it could be possible to introduce a dynamic morale and link it to the various team-talks but again, this is making the game far too easy in the extreme...

Not true. It is realistic to know your players' reactions the moment you stop giving your team-talk (Wenger must be able to see Clichy's head slump the moment he says anything in the dressing-room). It is realistic for a manager to try and change track during a team-talk as a result. If you like, it gives the manager many chances to improve things, rather than the lottery it is for newcomers right now.

Will it make it easier? I would argue that by adding "tiers" to team-talks, it will add many layers of complexity indirectly. For example, I'd like to see global team-talks have more of an effect on teams, and limit yourself to singling-out certain players (i.e. if 5 of your team have underperformed, it will be detrimental to give them individual team-talks and it will take longer - and the singling-out part will cast doubt in the eyes of various team-mates). There are many new things that can be done in team-talks to add different dimensions (rather than "easy").

I do like the idea of being able to perhaps give several different "group" team-talks though but I don't want it to run into full-blown conversation.

It doesn't have to.

the others, nah... I don't think we need a pressure meter, we discover through trial and error/morale changes how a player reacts to pressure. Imagine how much a real-life manager would like such a meter on his player's foreheads... Similarly, I don't think it's possible to introduce a tool-tip in this way simply because each team-talk will have a different effect in different matches especially if the build-up is different... Course, if the tool-tips can be made dynamically linked to the build-ups and thus be accurate 100% of the time and can be switched off in settings then I'm all for it

There you have it - it is possible.

Just have one or two meters on virtual heads, imagine the shadows of all your players sitting on benches with one meter for morale, one for pressure (and a bar suggesting their limit), their rating and names next to them. Click one button and the bars may go up and down, and you get a limited number of button clicks (suggesting that there is a limited amount of time to talk with the team). A global set of meters could appear down the side as an average to help. You can then click some shadows and give individual team-talks, but this will consume more time and is essentially singling-them out, which could be problematic.

Oh, and more choices? How do you mean? I'd like the team-talks to reflect the game more, sometimes the phrase I want to say, either as a collective or an individual, isn't there and this frustrates me a touch. As I watch the full 90, I'm considering my half-time talks as the game goes on, i.e. what I am going to say to who and as a whole, when half-time arrives and the phrases I want are unavailable it does cause me a few problems...

5 choices isn't really enough. Let's remember that a team-talk is one of the key ways that a manager can get himself across to players - for example, he can tell his full-back to get stuck-in to the opposition wingers (pressure down, morale up, chances of red card up). He could have moderate versions or extreme versions of team-talks (mild anger vs. raging vs. quiet anger). We could have rhetorical questions. We could have members of the squad contributing to team-talks (i.e. your captain or most influential player), and you could give them guidance too. Many, many options should be available - I'd like something along the lines of 7-9, really, all easily-accessible and with various tooltips and feedback saying what each one will do (but not what each one will do to your players - big key difference).

[Lankylars]

It sounds like Lazaru5, your issue with x42's comments stems from the game potentially giving away too many details about how to talk to one's team - details that would dilute much of the effort put into understanding each player and the situation. I think that some people's examples of how a tool-tip could explain each team talk option do go too far: we don't want a bullet point list of 10 pros and cons for each option. Yet at the same time, there is too much ambiguity (well, maybe ambiguity isn't the best word - perhaps 'too little detail' is a better choice). As a manager, when I say "For the fans!" I could be wearing a huge grin on my face and slapping the back of every player in the dressing room, while the team enjoys a great run of form. Or I could be saying "For the fans!" because we're in a rut, and the dedicated supporters deserve some appreciation from the players. When I say "I expect a win," I could be saying 'If you lose to this minnow of a team, I will have you running laps until your feet fall off." Or, I could be saying 'If we don't win this game, I'll be fired. I'm a dead man.'

So you get my point - I don't advocate listing pros and cons or the situational "usage" of each talk option in the game, but I do think that more options, with more detail in themselves, would be better. E.g. "For the fans! Go get 'em!" and "Let's do this for the fans. They could really use some uplifting."

I will agree with x42 that we should have more ongoing detail about a player's morale - in real life it's easier to see if a player has poor morale because his form stinks or because he isn't gelling well with the team.

Essentially, as a middle ground, I think FM should provide more and more detailed options, but should not tell people what to do with them. For one, there are too many variables to explain adequately why one team talk will work better with certain personalities, and two: explicitly telling people what to do lowers the engagement level. If the options were more detailed, people should have fewer questions and less confusion over how an option could help their team perform.

[BiggusD]

I just want the "you can win this", "for the fans" team talks go away, to be replaced with another set of symbolic team talks that does not leave it to the imagination to figure out exactly what is meant by them.

I also want the "Balanced midfielder" or "flamboyant winger" nonsensical personality descriptions to go away and be replaced with descriptions that does not leave it to the imagination to figure out exactly what is meant by them.

And I want at least a hint at how my players handle pressure somewhere in the game; hide it, obscure it - I don't care just don't leave it out.

[Lazaru5]

I just want the "you can win this", "for the fans" team talks go away, to be replaced with another set of symbolic team talks that does not leave it to the imagination to figure out exactly what is meant by them.

I want to keep them, thanks all the same. "you can win" is fairly obviously meant to be an encouraging team-talk, use it especially when you are not favourites and are away from home (other situations too..). "for the fans" is essentially a neutral team-talk but I almost never use it exclusively, I usually give some individual team-talks too such as "expect a performance" "pick up where you left off" "no pressure" "you have faith" and so on depending on various factors like the match, morale, form, fitness, etc.

I also want the "Balanced midfielder" or "flamboyant winger" nonsensical personality descriptions to go away and be replaced with descriptions that does not leave it to the imagination to figure out exactly what is meant by them.

never ever seen a "balanced midfielder" o.O a flamboyant winger is one who has a lot of flair... go figure, is it really that easy? A flamboyant winger, with a lot of creative freedom, can be the difference sometimes as they are more likely to try the unexpected... sorry but I want to keep the descriptions too..

And I want at least a hint at how my players handle pressure somewhere in the game; hide it, obscure it - I don't care just don't leave it out.

as I've said several times in this thread, the information IS there... *shrugs*

[Lazaru5]

It sounds like Lazaru5, your issue with x42's comments stems from the game potentially giving away too many details about how to talk to one's team - details that would dilute much of the effort put into understanding each player and the situation. I think that some people's examples of how a tool-tip could explain each team talk option do go too far: we don't want a bullet point list of 10 pros and cons for each option. Yet at the same time, there is too much ambiguity (well, maybe ambiguity isn't the best word - perhaps 'too little detail' is a better choice).

Not quite.. I feel x42 is playing devil's advocate more than anything else. I know that some people find the media/player interactions difficult, but why that should be I have no real idea. It is fairly easy for me to understand the logic and, because I do, I then find it hard to understand why people have difficulties with the feature

As a manager, when I say "For the fans!" I could be wearing a huge grin on my face and slapping the back of every player in the dressing room, while the team enjoys a great run of form. Or I could be saying "For the fans!" because we're in a rut, and the dedicated supporters deserve some appreciation from the players. When I say "I expect a win," I could be saying 'If you lose to this minnow of a team, I will have you running laps until your feet fall off." Or, I could be saying 'If we don't win this game, I'll be fired. I'm a dead man.'

So you get my point - I don't advocate listing pros and cons or the situational "usage" of each talk option in the game, but I do think that more options, with more detail in themselves, would be better. E.g. "For the fans! Go get 'em!" and "Let's do this for the fans. They could really use some uplifting."

The point here is that you yourself should know what you mean by "for the fans" and by extension so should your players (if you have used the media/player interaction modules correctly).

I will agree with x42 that we should have more ongoing detail about a player's morale - in real life it's easier to see if a player has poor morale because his form stinks or because he isn't gelling well with the team.

A player with poor morale shows just as obviously in the ME, if you watch the full 90 you would see this.. and you would see nervous players making mistakes, over-confident players trying "Hollywood" balls constantly, fired-up players making reckless challenges and so on...

Essentially, as a middle ground, I think FM should provide more and more detailed options, but should not tell people what to do with them. For one, there are too many variables to explain adequately why one team talk will work better with certain personalities, and two: explicitly telling people what to do lowers the engagement level. If the options were more detailed, people should have fewer questions and less confusion over how an option could help their team perform.

I don't find that team-talks work better with some personalities and not others except individual talks... :confused:

I think we already have enough detail in the game, adding even more will make the game more complicated, not less, as you would have more "wrong" options too.

Were SI to explain in detail how everything works then, as you say, the level of engagement would be lower, less people would enjoy the game because it would be 'too easy' and this in turn would have a detrimental effect on the success of FM in the future.

I'll give a little and say that, maybe, the player/media interaction modules could be explained a little more clearly in the manual/the game but I don't think it really needs that much "extra" information to be shared to achieve this.

[Lazaru5]

Because it is not necessarily intuitive. One example is, for example, the fact that sometimes the best team-talk is no team-talk at all when things are going "OK". Can you imagine Fergie going into a changing room, looking at his players, and walking out again?

Yes. If it's warranted to ignore your players then sure, I can see SAF doing just that. The "none" team-talk can work both ways too, whether your team are playing poorly or playing well sometimes "none" is the only 'sensible' team-talk.

Another, which I have mentioned time-and-time again is the fact that it is tedious to find out the level of pressure on your players without having to memorise, deduce and flip back-and-forth between screens - and the level of pressure the players are under is important to a team-talk.

I keep saying this, but if you are the manager of a group of players then you should know this anyway as it's a part of the job. Because we can't physically see or interact with the players we have to do other things to find out information that we'd normally be able to deduce from a look... I don't find this tedious, mainly because I rarely have to "do it twice" - i.e. once I know how a player reacts in a given situation I don't usually forget. I just accept it as a necessary 'evil' to have to look for the information that would normally be in front of me as this is an aspect of real-life that cannot be simulated.

I suppose you would want your assistant to tell you how every player looked in the warm-up? I can see pro's and con's for something like this, such as the ass-man saying a player looks over-confident and you putting undue pressure on him as a result...

The UI can always be improved to make the game more accessible.

Obviously...

"Easy to get into" is, in a sense, the accessibility of the game, not the ease of which a player can make a correct decision. Therefore I'd argue things like getting your assistant to do it are closer to mastering the game, rather than getting into it. "Easy to get into" in that sense would be a clear option in an expected position (i.e. preferences) that is easy to understand in what it does. If you like, "easy to get into" has very little impact on actually making decisions - it impacts how things are seen and understood.

and we have different opinions on how easy it is to see and understand various aspects. I find that the game follows logical sequences so therefore one only has to understand the logic behind a particular feature to understand how it works. As I said above, I'll give a little and say that, maybe, the player/media interaction modules could be explained a little more clearly in the manual/the game but I don't think it really needs that much "extra" information to be shared to achieve this.

You're missing the point - I've already agreed that sometimes things go badly. It's just that how the user knows is unrealistic - if I say something bad to a crowd, I will quickly know and can correct myself by saying something better (i.e a bad joke followed by a good one). At present, I can only say a bad joke to the crowd and will only realise when people start boycotting my shows. In addition, I have to jump through hoops and ladders to get these statistics.

That is the crux of the issue - a manager only knows the effects of the team-talk after the players go back onto the pitch again, and cannot change track during a team-talk - it's one option or nothing. Unrealistic.

It's a game! There are going to be things that can never be accurately simulated and I suppose seeing how the players react to team-talks before they go onto the pitch is one of those things. To introduce any sort of dynamic to the way team-talks are given or received would add to the complexity of the game thus making it harder to understand, not easier.. We'd have thread after thread of people saying "why did this team-talk make that players morale go up/down but not the rest of the teams?" and it would be harder to both understand and to explain why simply because the dynamics would be different for each person/player/team/save...

You find it incredibly rewarding to have unlocked a good "tactic", but this "tactic" might be difficult to understand, or tedious in itself.

"Mastery" and "getting into" are very different.

My tactic is irrelevant, it is my strategy that works... and everybody can have a good strategy!

A game is meant to be fun and the less a user needs to learn or memorise, the more they can focus on actually playing and enjoying the game. If you like, if we could put our real-life brains into the virtual reality of the game, and all the information held in our brain could easily be accessed via the game, the more we could dedicate our brain power to other things, like multi-tasking.

I simply see the team-talk feature as unrealistic and somewhat tedious. My belief is that it relies somewhat on memorisation of many things for many players, whilst hiding abstractions of pressure away from the user which we quite frankly should know as managers.

Of course, learning to master a game is a totally different story. Football Manager can be difficult to master but can always be made easier to get into, if it means exposing more attributes that should be hidden, or giving more feedback, or by making the team-talks more realistic by allowing more options and a stepwise approach.

A user should be able to have a solid amount of important information that is realistic to make his or her decisions - this is not the case here.

I disagree with this. The information is there but as the game is a simulation and not VR that information cannot be presented in a similar way as it would be IRL, it's just the way it is. SI haven't left that information out, you just have to find it out a different way to real-life. I'm also pretty sure that most managers IRL would know how their players react in certain situations - but they would have had to find that out first in order to be able to know it!

Not true. It is realistic to know your players' reactions the moment you stop giving your team-talk (Wenger must be able to see Clichy's head slump the moment he says anything in the dressing-room). It is realistic for a manager to try and change track during a team-talk as a result. If you like, it gives the manager many chances to improve things, rather than the lottery it is for newcomers right now.

Will it make it easier? I would argue that by adding "tiers" to team-talks, it will add many layers of complexity indirectly. For example, I'd like to see global team-talks have more of an effect on teams, and limit yourself to singling-out certain players (i.e. if 5 of your team have underperformed, it will be detrimental to give them individual team-talks and it will take longer - and the singling-out part will cast doubt in the eyes of various team-mates). There are many new things that can be done in team-talks to add different dimensions (rather than "easy").

Yeah... with FM certain aspects have to be unrealistic, simply because they have to be... I cannot see how it would be possible to introduce a dynamic team-talk effect before the team-talk is delivered and "tiered" team-talks would add to the newcomers confusion not lessen it. IRL a manager gives his team-talk just before sending the player's out of the dressing room, yes? That's what we do in FM... if anything we need more individual shouts in the match engine itself to counter bad team-talks as that is what a manager would do IRL. I'd like to be able to pull a player to the sidelines and give him a few sharp words or an encouraging smile or whatever... I watched the Bournemouth v Huddersfield play-off 1st leg on Sunday and noticed that Lee Clark had a long conversation with his captain when Town were under the cosh in the second-half - we can't do that and that is what is needed IMHO, not more dynamism with the actual team-talks.

There you have it - it is possible.

The tool-tip suggestion is, yes... I don't personally think that it's needed but, like I said, if I can turn it off in preferences then fine, let's have a tool-tip for the team-talks (but it's still making the game too easy...)

Just have one or two meters on virtual heads, imagine the shadows of all your players sitting on benches with one meter for morale, one for pressure (and a bar suggesting their limit), their rating and names next to them. Click one button and the bars may go up and down, and you get a limited number of button clicks (suggesting that there is a limited amount of time to talk with the team). A global set of meters could appear down the side as an average to help. You can then click some shadows and give individual team-talks, but this will consume more time and is essentially singling-them out, which could be problematic.

Uggh! No, thanks but this is definitely a thumbs down from me

5 choices isn't really enough. Let's remember that a team-talk is one of the key ways that a manager can get himself across to players - for example, he can tell his full-back to get stuck-in to the opposition wingers (pressure down, morale up, chances of red card up). He could have moderate versions or extreme versions of team-talks (mild anger vs. raging vs. quiet anger). We could have rhetorical questions. We could have members of the squad contributing to team-talks (i.e. your captain or most influential player), and you could give them guidance too. Many, many options should be available - I'd like something along the lines of 7-9, really, all easily-accessible and with various tooltips and feedback saying what each one will do (but not what each one will do to your players - big key difference).

As I said above, introducing more options will increase the level of confusion as there will be more 'wrong' options too. 5 options works OK for me, generally, but as I said earlier I would like to see the team-talks being more accurately reflective of what is happening on the pitch. If I can give the talks I want to at half-time then I'm happy, if not then I wonder why... for example I had 2 players on 6.1 at half-time in a recent match and one DC on 5.8 - I could tell only one of them to "prove a point!" (RCM - 6.1) so what was the reason for this? From what I was seeing on the pitch, "prove a point" was definitely the right thing to say to my Striker - the option wasn't available! This is where the game fails for me, the half-time team-talk options are not reflective of the teams performance. Similarly, if a player has had a poor game (by poor I mean 6.2 or less) then I damn well want to say to him that I "expect better!" in the next match - I've had players get low 5 ratings in the previous match and yet the option still isn't there..

Having played the game for years and years you would think that I would know what causes the various individual talks to be available but I don't... It's not, for me, that I don't understand what each team-talk does, it's understanding why they aren't available when I want them that I find difficult to figure out... ("mastery" not "getting into" ).

[Coentrao]

Well from the personality and the media-handling types you can easily know how a player can handle pressure or have an idea of how professional he is.

But i only know this on detail since someone researched the hidden game values with a third party tool of each personality.. without this it wouldn't be crystal clear though.

[Tyler42]

Wow the OP has 4 words in his post. Most replies on here are like full articles. I can usually read threads over but this is just too much!